Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-09-2012, 1:56 PM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Mesa, are you saying that I should not post my opinion just because "everyone disagrees with me"?
No, I said what I said. Go back and read it.

Your position is crystal clear because you have said it again and again and again. There is nothing incomprehensible about what you say.

I'm just not sure why you keep saying it because so far no one in this forum has agreed with you. People on this forum are touchy about the police illegally confiscating law-abiding people's guns. I don't think you are going to change any minds about that.

And you never answered my question.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 11-09-2012, 2:22 PM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 2,585
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
..., I just think that it was about the stupidest thing I had ever heard of ...
Seriously?!
Try a search on YouTube.com using the word "fail" and get back to us on your standard for "the stupidest thing [you've] ever heard of".

Hyperbole, much?
__________________
If time, chance and random process can produce a platypus why not an AMMO TREE?!
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic9991_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 11-09-2012, 2:44 PM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
A quick question for those of you that are so offended by my "reasonable" argument.
If my argument is so unreasonable and wrong headed, then why are the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and "what a reasonable officer with the same tenure and experience do" so enshrined in case law and our courts?
Our laws laws are all about being 'reasonable". I'm sure that if you Googled "reasonable / case law", you would not get through all the hits in your life time.
I'm just saying that looking at this from a reasonable perspective is not so out of the box or "unreasonable".
What specific and articulable facts were there that a crime was being, about to be, or was committed?
The standard you suggest leads to an officer doing anything and the SCOTUS has commented on this:
But "good faith on the part of the arresting officers is not enough." Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 361 U. S. 102. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
It's possibly because in my experience, most LEO's don't give a crap about you and your guns. They don't want to take your guns away and they don't spend all their spare time studying gun laws and looking for loop holes to screw you. Take that how you want, but most cops are pro gun, pro citizens defending themselves and really do support and love the constitution.
I know of officers who have found loaded guns on people, found gun that people were not supposed to have and any and all sorts of violations and they gave the guns back or turned the contact into an educational one.
MOST Leo's don't want to take guns from you!!! Most Leo's think guns are cool and love to talk about them. Why do you think that there are so many Leo's here on Cal Guns? Why is there enough of them to have their own forum?
Then I have no fear of my legal firearm being seized because it’s an AW. I can carry concealed without a LTC because a sheriff won’t issue one. No? While what you say might be true it does not affect anyone here, because it is not a legal protection when you get the other LEO’s who don’t support the rights of the people. It also does not excuse the illegal actions of LEO when they occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Good luck getting that number past a jury. You know, a group of people that are expected to make a reasonable decision based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances. There may not be enough ALL OR NOTHING, MY WAY or the highway or “reasonable will NEVER factor into a second amendment decision” Cal Guns members in that pool…
How did that work out for SD? Or the other cases that have been won when LEO’s violate a person civil rights?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I mean; the guy has to have a loaded magazine and real body armor real body armor for a costume? Was it a prop or a tool to defend himself? Against what? The Green Lantern and Honey BooBoo two costumes over?
He didn’t have real body armor on, a person he was with had the body armor. What do you wear everyday?
So there is never any violence on Halloween?
We have a right to bear arms for protection because we don’t know when we might need it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I have my say, I am respectful (most of the time) as possible and I move on with my life after the thread is finished.
Respectful?!?!?! Mostly?!!? You made a veiled reference to Nazi’s in this thread at people who don’t agree with you. Sorry but you don’t get to play the victim and try to claim people are somehow anti-LEO because they don’t agree with you. You want to have a reasonable debate, cut down on the hyperbole or all you are going to getare people who are anti-LEO and it will be because of your actions.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 11-09-2012, 3:05 PM
SoCal Gunner's Avatar
SoCal Gunner SoCal Gunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Rant off....
While you're at it, can you turn the Troll off too?
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 11-09-2012, 3:26 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Gunner View Post
While you're at it, can you turn the Troll off too?


Ohhhhh the troll card........Best thrown down when you got nothing worthwhile to say. At least the other guys do a pretty good job of articulating why they thought I was AFU.....I don't agree with them, but hey, it is what it is.

What are you gonna do next, put me on ignore?

Last edited by greg36f; 11-09-2012 at 3:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 11-09-2012, 3:38 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,693
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman21 View Post
What specific and articulable facts were there that a crime was being, about to be, or was committed?
The standard you suggest leads to an officer doing anything and the SCOTUS has commented on this:
But "good faith on the part of the arresting officers is not enough." Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 361 U. S. 102. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," only in the discretion of the police.


Then I have no fear of my legal firearm being seized because it’s an AW. I can carry concealed without a LTC because a sheriff won’t issue one. No? While what you say might be true it does not affect anyone here, because it is not a legal protection when you get the other LEO’s who don’t support the rights of the people. It also does not excuse the illegal actions of LEO when they occur.


How did that work out for SD? Or the other cases that have been won when LEO’s violate a person civil rights?


He didn’t have real body armor on, a person he was with had the body armor. What do you wear everyday?
So there is never any violence on Halloween?
We have a right to bear arms for protection because we don’t know when we might need it.


Respectful?!?!?! Mostly?!!? You made a veiled reference to Nazi’s in this thread at people who don’t agree with you. Sorry but you don’t get to play the victim and try to claim people are somehow anti-LEO because they don’t agree with you. You want to have a reasonable debate, cut down on the hyperbole or all you are going to getare people who are anti-LEO and it will be because of your actions.


I am going to take advice given to me earlier and just go away for now......I made a point probably a few times to many and we are just running in circles.

I do want to address the bolded though. I have never at any time compared anyone on Cal Guns of being a Nazi. I was simply making a point (really out of the context of this thread) about how sometimes groups or individuals need "an enemy" to rally against and how LEO's seem too often fit the bill here on Cal Guns. I then went on to say how I thought that that was not the case and that LEO’s were in fact not the enemy and were in fact a large part of Cal Guns. I made the point because in the 3 years that I have been posting here, I have seen the Cal Guns / LEO relationship go downhill. I think that that is a shame.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 11-09-2012, 3:55 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
One could argue this, from the NRA Gun Safety Rules:

"Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.
"

As well, I'm sure the cops you refer to weren't there to "party."

A.W.D.
There is no indication that the UOCer was there to party. The one witness I have seen comment said he was checking him out of a store. Maybe he had to co out for baby formula and decided he did not want to go unarmed in Arcata on halloween.
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 11-09-2012, 5:10 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Thank you all for the informative and civil responses. Despite what some people seem to think, I am not Anti anything. While I did think that open carry was silly, I was a strong advocate for the right to do so. I get it, Calif. laws suck and someone needs to draw attention to that. Rifle carry; now that I do think is just wrong all around.

For the record, my questions never really were about his "right" to carry the rifle; I admitted that he did have the right to do so, I just think that it was about the stupidest thing I had ever heard of and I was curious if there was s a line (if any) that Cal Guns or gun owners collectively would draw. It's not the worst question in the world and I do think it deserves some thought and discussion.

After all, we as a community did approach that line in our responses (collectively and as an organization) to the open rifle carry. If I remember correctly, those discussions got pretty heated even among the supporters of normal “open carry”.

I try not o be “troll like”, but sometimes I do think that questions need to be asked. Sometimes we do get a bit herd like around here and that is not good for either the forum or the gun community at large. I NEVER just throw something out there for the fun of it or to JUST stir the pot. I try to only raise points that I BELIEVE have some validity.
When I was 10 we routinely carried our twenty twos across our handle bars or slung on our backs, road our bikes down Main Street, stopped at the corner service station for a box of ‘.22 shells’, and road on into the countryside. No one batted an eye. Twenty two cartridges and other ammo were also available at the grocery stores the hardware and the five & dime.

We were considered rodent control by local farmers. But if MR. Levi or any of the other farmers saw you doing anything against the safety rules you were in for a harsh scolding and a call to your father; at the very least. Ten years later I could walk down the sidewalk or across a parking lot in Fresno on my way to a gun shop with a rifle over my shoulder and a pistol on my belt and if any one looked at you funny you just figured they weren’t from around here.

People are slowly being trained to be terrified of firearms. I actually think that folks who fear other people being armed are projecting their own self doubt. Maybe they should examine whether or not they trust themselves to be armed in public.

GCA-68 killed the service station and grocery store ammo. The alienation of our police means a kid would be face down on the pavement within three blocks. You have to lock your pistol in a box to take it anywhere and it will be the same for your rifle soon. That is only a few feet of the slippery slope we talk about.

And this is all OK with you?
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 11-09-2012, 5:42 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,858
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
A quick question for those of you that are so offended by my "reasonable" argument.

If my argument is so unreasonable and wrong headed, then why are the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and "what a reasonable officer with the same tenure and experience do" so enshrined in case law and our courts?

Our laws laws are all about being 'reasonable". I'm sure that if you Googled "reasonable / case law", you would not get through all the hits in your life time.

I'm just saying that looking at this from a reasonable perspective is not so out of the box or "unreasonable".
Seizing someone's property, without warrant, or other legal justification, is contrary to the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I don’t see common sense anywhere in the text of the Fourth Amendment, as justification for the seizure of property...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 11-09-2012, 5:47 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
A quick question for those of you that are so offended by my "reasonable" argument.

If my argument is so unreasonable and wrong headed, then why are the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and "what a reasonable officer with the same tenure and experience do" so enshrined in case law and our courts?

Our laws laws are all about being 'reasonable". I'm sure that if you Googled "reasonable / case law", you would not get through all the hits in your life time.

I'm just saying that looking at this from a reasonable perspective is not so out of the box or "unreasonable".
Abuse of Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause are too often used by government to excuse infringement of the fourth amendment. One transgression should not be used to excuse another.
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 11-09-2012, 5:49 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,858
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
A quick question for those of you that are so offended by my "reasonable" argument.

If my argument is so unreasonable and wrong headed, then why are the terms "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" and "what a reasonable officer with the same tenure and experience do" so enshrined in case law and our courts?

Our laws laws are all about being 'reasonable". I'm sure that if you Googled "reasonable / case law", you would not get through all the hits in your life time.

I'm just saying that looking at this from a reasonable perspective is not so out of the box or "unreasonable".

"Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are used in the context of justification for a detaiment or search prior to an arrest. No one has contested his temporary detainment to check if the firearm was loaded. Once tit was determined to not be loaded, he should have been permitted to go on his way with his property (firearm).

In this instance there was no arrest, as no laws were broken. This is strictly a siezure of lawfully posessed property, regardless how foolish the individual was in putting himself in that position.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 11-09-2012, 6:51 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,597
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat1 View Post
People are slowly being trained to be terrified of firearms. I actually think that folks who fear other people being armed are projecting their own self doubt. Maybe they should examine whether or not they trust themselves to be armed in public.
They fear other people being armed not because they distrust themselves, but because they are unarmed and they want everyone else they deal with to be on an equal footing. It never occurs to them to arm themselves instead, and there's one good, solid reason for that: carrying in public in any meaningful way is essentially off the table, thanks to the suffocating laws on the books that prevent it. Both getting a firearm and, even where possible, getting a license to carry concealed, are time consuming and burdensome.

If we are to deal with this fear, the law has to change first, such that buying a firearm is merely a matter of going to the store and carrying it in public is either allowed without a permit or getting the permit is easy, painless, and fast.

Until that time, people who are unarmed will always fear those who are armed, and understandably so: they're at a disadvantage against people they know nothing about. The only reason that fear makes them anti-gun is that the law itself already makes their more reasonable and responsible option, arming themselves, expensive and painful.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 11-09-2012, 6:52 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Meplat1 ive only heard my dag talk about those days. Riding a horse through the orange groves in riverside at his aunts house in the 1950's/1960's as a kid shooting jackrabbits and rodents with a .22 lever action. So hard to believe that was all lost in a generation. The baby boomers have been awful with their legal preferences.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 11-09-2012, 8:24 PM
emtmark's Avatar
emtmark emtmark is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: South of Gilroy CA
Posts: 2,291
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Tagq
__________________
I know what this man needs.............bring me the vodka
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 11-09-2012, 8:46 PM
cacop cacop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
I am going to take advice given to me earlier and just go away for now......I made a point probably a few times to many and we are just running in circles.

I do want to address the bolded though. I have never at any time compared anyone on Cal Guns of being a Nazi. I was simply making a point (really out of the context of this thread) about how sometimes groups or individuals need "an enemy" to rally against and how LEO's seem too often fit the bill here on Cal Guns. I then went on to say how I thought that that was not the case and that LEO’s were in fact not the enemy and were in fact a large part of Cal Guns. I made the point because in the 3 years that I have been posting here, I have seen the Cal Guns / LEO relationship go downhill. I think that that is a shame.
Couldn't agree with you more, especially the parts I marked in bold. It is a big reason why there have been long breaks in my posting here. It wasn't as bad when I started but it got worse fast.

I kind of like it in some way because there is at least one company I will never buy their products based on their posts here. I also tell my coworkers not to buy them and why. It is kind of funny because he slaps law enforcement as one of his big buyers all over his website. Essenitally using LE as a marketing tool. I guess he will take our money on his website but trash us on this one.

At least we know who we can't count on.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 11-09-2012, 9:31 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop View Post
Couldn't agree with you more, especially the parts I marked in bold. It is a big reason why there have been long breaks in my posting here. It wasn't as bad when I started but it got worse fast.

I kind of like it in some way because there is at least one company I will never buy their products based on their posts here. I also tell my coworkers not to buy them and why. It is kind of funny because he slaps law enforcement as one of his big buyers all over his website. Essenitally using LE as a marketing tool. I guess he will take our money on his website but trash us on this one.

At least we know who we can't count on.
The subject of this thread and the OP is what looks to be an unlawful, unconstitutional seizure of property from someone that was not breaking any laws.

Wouldn't you agree that such unconstitutional acts by law enforcement are unacceptable, give good cops a bad name, and should be addressed through legal channels and training (to make sure it doesn't happen again)?

Would you also agree that, if the officer(s) did unconstitutionally seize property, they should be formally disciplined?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 11-10-2012, 9:48 AM
cacop cacop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
The subject of this thread and the OP is what looks to be an unlawful, unconstitutional seizure of property from someone that was not breaking any laws.

Wouldn't you agree that such unconstitutional acts by law enforcement are unacceptable, give good cops a bad name, and should be addressed through legal channels and training (to make sure it doesn't happen again)?Sure.

Would you also agree that, if the officer(s) did unconstitutionally seize property, they should be formally disciplined?Depends. What was the officer trained to do? Remember if an officer recieves outside training he is on his own. One of the many reasons why there are some big name instructors I will never train with. Some I will wait until retirement. Until then, POST approved, court tested. A deprtment's failure to train does not transfer liability to an officer in a courtroom so it should not in the chief's office.

-Brandon
You missed my point completely. Maybe it was intentional. My point was than no matter what we as officers say here there will be those who will paint us all with a broad brush. I could do the same for a lot of people here. I think there are some non-cops here who are idiots. They spread FUD about LE. I could paint you with that same broad brush.

I have come to terms with it in regards to this and any other site. If you or anyone else can't handle what I say then run to the mods or owner and get me banned. I will also will not fight each piece of FUD about LE because I just don't have the time to do it. I would need a couple of hours a day for this subforum alone. It is hard sometimes because the FUD is so retarded.
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 11-10-2012, 10:36 AM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,098
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop View Post
You missed my point completely. Maybe it was intentional. My point was than no matter what we as officers say here there will be those who will paint us all with a broad brush. I could do the same for a lot of people here. I think there are some non-cops here who are idiots. They spread FUD about LE. I could paint you with that same broad brush.

I have come to terms with it in regards to this and any other site. If you or anyone else can't handle what I say then run to the mods or owner and get me banned. I will also will not fight each piece of FUD about LE because I just don't have the time to do it. I would need a couple of hours a day for this subforum alone. It is hard sometimes because the FUD is so retarded.
I forget. Was this thread about cop bashing and spreading FUD about police, or was it about a lawfully owned semi-automatic rifle being seized by police for the good of 'public safety'?

No need to get all puckered up over a discussion over what went wrong with this scenario, because not all peace officers who have posted on this thread feel like they are being impugned by the comments about APD's error.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:45 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

This thread is about what was likely an unconstitutional seizure of property when law enforcement - the chief - knew there were no laws being broken. See:

Quote:
[Police Chief] Chapman stood by his decision to confiscate the AR-15 assault rifle from the man who brought it and 10 rounds of ammunition to the Plaza.

The man wasn’t happy about his rifle being taken away from him, and Chapman acknowledged that the legal justification for APD doing so was tenuous at best.

His conduct wasn’t necessarily a technical violation of any code or existing law,” Chapman said.
(Emphasis added.)

It seems that no matter what we advocates for liberty and constitutionally-appropriate law enforcement say here, there will be both cops who paint us all with a broad brush...

Let me clarify something: I don't care how you do your job as long as you remember that your first oath is to the People and their charter and act accordingly. The subject officers failed that test, and now they are going to live with the consequences of it.

Tell me, why aren't the officers' association(s) the first ones on our side here? Shouldn't their interests in departments having Constitutionally-sound enforcement policies and training programs be a first priority?

Nope, it's crickets, because everyone takes care of #1. It's human nature. Our #1 happens to be the Constitution.

Choices, choices.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop View Post
You missed my point completely. Maybe it was intentional. My point was than no matter what we as officers say here there will be those who will paint us all with a broad brush. I could do the same for a lot of people here. I think there are some non-cops here who are idiots. They spread FUD about LE. I could paint you with that same broad brush.

I have come to terms with it in regards to this and any other site. If you or anyone else can't handle what I say then run to the mods or owner and get me banned. I will also will not fight each piece of FUD about LE because I just don't have the time to do it. I would need a couple of hours a day for this subforum alone. It is hard sometimes because the FUD is so retarded.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:52 AM
SoCal Gunner's Avatar
SoCal Gunner SoCal Gunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
I forget. Was this thread about cop bashing and spreading FUD about police, or was it about a lawfully owned semi-automatic rifle being seized by police for the good of 'public safety'?

No need to get all puckered up over a discussion over what went wrong with this scenario, because not all peace officers who have posted on this thread feel like they are being impugned by the comments about APD's error.
^This.

Some people can't help but read more into it, and insert their asinine comments over and over again just to hear (read) themselves talk. I for one think it's time for the Head Janitor to come in here and tidy up all the non-relevant BS in here. Those that want to continue on these tangents should take it to "Off Topic", because that's exactly what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 11-10-2012, 12:09 PM
donny douchebag donny douchebag is offline
Internet 'Tough Guy'
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
...Supporting this guy either as a group or as an individual just makes you look radical and foolish and turns the public against you and your cause. There go those gun nut jobs again!!!

Support this guy and you become lumped in with the whale chasers, PETA nut jobs and Westborough Baptist church nuts…..Yeah, they have a “right”, but they are so far out there that they erode support for the idea / cause in general. .....
Well said. We are our own worst enemy. It a shame so few here get that.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 11-10-2012, 12:19 PM
Hdawg's Avatar
Hdawg Hdawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Modesto
Posts: 429
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop
Depends. What was the officer trained to do? Remember if an officer recieves outside training he is on his own. One of the many reasons why there are some big name instructors I will never train with. Some I will wait until retirement. Until then, POST approved, court tested. A deprtment's failure to train does not transfer liability to an officer in a courtroom so it should not in the chief's office.
So since they were just following training and/or orders, they get a pass? Just... wow.
Why is it a cop who does something that a "civilian" would get arrested and sent to jail for whether or not he knew it was illegal gets away with an illegal action because he didn't know it was illegal or because he was just following "procedure"? Why am I held to a higher standard than you are when it comes to the law? Here's a yes or no question for you. If a non-leo had taken this guy's rifle and not given it back, would you arrest that person? And if you would, why wouldn't you arrest the cop for the same thing?

Do you think it might be possible that the attitude that a cop should get a pass for illegal behavior because he can't be expected to know the law has something to do with the negativity that gets directed towards police officers?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
Ante up or anti up. You decide.
Need 22 ammo for your kids to shoot?
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 11-10-2012, 12:34 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,858
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Good luck getting that number past a jury. You know, a group of people that are expected to make a reasonable decision based upon the totality of the facts and circumstances. There may not be enough ALL OR NOTHING, MY WAY or the highway or “reasonable will NEVER factor into a second amendment decision” Cal Guns members in that pool…

I mean; the guy has to have a loaded magazine and real body armor real body armor for a costume? Was it a prop or a tool to defend himself? Against what? The Green Lantern and Honey BooBoo two costumes over?

Supporting this guy either as a group or as an individual just makes you look radical and foolish and turns the public against you and your cause. There go those gun nut jobs again!!!

Support this guy and you become lumped in with the whale chasers, PETA nut jobs and Westborough Baptist church nuts…..Yeah, they have a “right”, but they are so far out there that they erode support for the idea / cause in general.

I know that I am beating a dead horse but the news story brought up a few new points.....

I guess I am a radical then, I obey the law and I expect law enforcement to do the same. Do I think the guy that had his rifle seized is foolish, yes I do. I generally support law enforcement too. However, when law enforcement crosses that like where they no longer respect the bill of rights, I have a problem with that....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 11-10-2012, 6:56 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
Meplat1 ive only heard my dag talk about those days. Riding a horse through the orange groves in riverside at his aunts house in the 1950's/1960's as a kid shooting jackrabbits and rodents with a .22 lever action. So hard to believe that was all lost in a generation. The baby boomers have been awful with their legal preferences.
The boomers are not innocent but the ‘greatest generation’ is not either. They thought that all they had to do was win the war and the rest would take care of its self. They were wrong and they let the country go to hell big time!

When GCA-68 was passed I was 21 and very aware and active in fighting it. But at the risk of offending some of our younger members; most 21 year olds don’t know squat. And much of what they do know is wrong. We have many young people on this forum who have their heads screwed on straight, but overall the population under 30 has much less ability and opportunity to impinge upon their society as those in their forties, fifties, and sixties, simply because of the flow of the stages of life. Middle aged people have more disposable income, and are in positions of greater influence in business and government.

The WWII generation was in charge while most of the onerous gun control was being passed. Then they turned the helm over to the selfish, irresponsible, spoiled brats that they raised and we now call boomers!
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Meplat1; 11-10-2012 at 7:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 11-10-2012, 9:26 PM
cacop cacop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 310
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hdawg View Post
So since they were just following training and/or orders, they get a pass? Just... wow.
Why is it a cop who does something that a "civilian" would get arrested and sent to jail for whether or not he knew it was illegal gets away with an illegal action because he didn't know it was illegal or because he was just following "procedure"? Why am I held to a higher standard than you are when it comes to the law? Here's a yes or no question for you. If a non-leo had taken this guy's rifle and not given it back, would you arrest that person? And if you would, why wouldn't you arrest the cop for the same thing?

Do you think it might be possible that the attitude that a cop should get a pass for illegal behavior because he can't be expected to know the law has something to do with the negativity that gets directed towards police officers?
What are the two words every cop needs to know when being asked for a justification for their actions?
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 11-10-2012, 9:38 PM
jeffrice6's Avatar
jeffrice6 jeffrice6 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 3,714
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop View Post
What are the two words every cop needs to know when being asked for a justification for their actions?
Bull ~ & ~ S#!t
__________________
WTB: S&W 617 4" 10 shot Pre-Lock
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 11-10-2012, 10:08 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,061
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat1 View Post
When I was 10 we routinely carried our twenty twos across our handle bars or slung on our backs, road our bikes down Main Street, stopped at the corner service station for a box of ‘.22 shells’, and road on into the countryside. No one batted an eye. Twenty two cartridges and other ammo were also available at the grocery stores the hardware and the five & dime.

We were considered rodent control by local farmers. But if MR. Levi or any of the other farmers saw you doing anything against the safety rules you were in for a harsh scolding and a call to your father; at the very least. Ten years later I could walk down the sidewalk or across a parking lot in Fresno on my way to a gun shop with a rifle over my shoulder and a pistol on my belt and if any one looked at you funny you just figured they weren’t from around here.

People are slowly being trained to be terrified of firearms. I actually think that folks who fear other people being armed are projecting their own self doubt. Maybe they should examine whether or not they trust themselves to be armed in public.

GCA-68 killed the service station and grocery store ammo. The alienation of our police means a kid would be face down on the pavement within three blocks. You have to lock your pistol in a box to take it anywhere and it will be the same for your rifle soon. That is only a few feet of the slippery slope we talk about.

And this is all OK with you?
My dad used to ride his bike with a sawed off 22 over the handle bars too. An illegal NFA weapon, a kid on a bike, shooting in the park, in SAN FRANCISCO! The police sometimes told him to take it home and sometimes didn't say anything. This was in the 40s.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:20 PM
chris10's Avatar
chris10 chris10 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Humboldt
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wonder how much of the "AR-15 Seized by Police for "Public Safety" reasons" thread still exists?

Since this could be another whooping on a department courtesy of Calguns, and local for me, I'm interested in the outcome.

Sifting through pages of.........not sure what word I should use...is frustrating
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 11-11-2012, 7:31 AM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ventura
Posts: 10,386
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I love how some LEO want to justify this thread as "bashing LEO". It shows the trueth that there is a "Blue Code" we civilians need to worry about. Any and all LEO should look at this situation and oppose the chef..period, end of story.

We post a video of two 250lb officers beating the crap out of a 95lb spoiled brat 15 year old girl and its "LEO bashing"...No its not. Every single person no matter what their career is should be saying, "WTF are those two IDIOTS doing?"
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 11-11-2012, 8:12 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,816
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Checked in for a statist update. That was a waste of time. Nothing new here but bickering.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 11-11-2012, 2:07 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop View Post
What are the two words every cop needs to know when being asked for a justification for their actions?
Officer Safety.
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-11-2012, 2:42 PM
FoxTrot87 FoxTrot87 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 436
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

As a Police Officer one should approach the law objectively to what has been defined by the courts. You won't agree with a lot of the BS but that was written and how it's been defined through the courts.

Unfortunately, this places a heavy burden on the shoulder of Police who might follow the same police chief statistic of 66% believing in the right to carry. The emphasis needs to be placed on the system most notably the courts who impose their "opinions" on the people regardless of historically proven context. Do you want an agency to have the power to pick and chose what is morally acceptable when they're sole purpose is to up hold the law created by the people? Let's not forget that slavery, native Americans, the Japanese, and witch hunts, were once accepted by a majority of the population and enacted by the system.

Yes, things have changed but would you want the Police to be the ultimate political authority and the singular enforcer?

I personally know a lot of officers who are and will forever be incompetent and only hold an AA with Academy accounting for a majority of units. A lot doesn't mean a majority but enough create a negative perception that the police are the problem. WE the people should be targeting the politicians, lawyers, and judges who WRITE and ENACT the laws which oppress our rights.

They aren't the problem we're being faced with... they're simply a product of the system.

Last edited by FoxTrot87; 11-11-2012 at 2:46 PM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-11-2012, 2:55 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,464
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacop View Post
What are the two words every cop needs to know when being asked for a justification for their actions?
Reasonable suspicion.

How would you react if a civilian took a cops side arm because they were afraid? I'm sure that you would want them in prison or more likely shot dead.

Unless there was an actual reason to take the guys AR, then the cop is guilty of theft.
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 11-11-2012, 3:14 PM
FoxTrot87 FoxTrot87 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 436
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Reasonable suspicion.

How would you react if a civilian took a cops side arm because they were afraid? I'm sure that you would want them in prison or more likely shot dead.

Unless there was an actual reason to take the guys AR, then the cop is guilty of theft.

Perhaps better training on awareness that their experiences are impairing their judgment to think objectively. Imagine issuing arrests everyday to a certain demographic, when guilty had the same excuses, etc etc. This requires a very high level of interpersonal thinking which could also raise other problems.

just 2cents... I just like asking questions or raising concerns to brainstorm possible solutions
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 11-15-2012, 5:18 PM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This could be read a few different ways, but at this time, the PD is closing off some public disclosure of this...uh...incident...?

http://publicdocumentdistributors.co...read.php?t=965

I've uploaded their responses in PDF file which you can open or download
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 11-15-2012, 5:39 PM
CitaDeL's Avatar
CitaDeL CitaDeL is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 5,098
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
This could be read a few different ways, but at this time, the PD is closing off some public disclosure of this...uh...incident...?

http://publicdocumentdistributors.co...read.php?t=965

I've uploaded their responses in PDF file which you can open or download
An active criminal investigation is an exemption to a PRA request to provide access to public records. So, either there is now a criminal investigation where the owner of the rifle is suspected of a crime or they are telling you to go away with your requests to see the public documents that you requested and the burden to prove there is no ongoing criminal investigation is on you.
__________________

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 11-15-2012, 6:15 PM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CitaDeL View Post
An active criminal investigation is an exemption to a PRA request to provide access to public records. So, either there is now a criminal investigation where the owner of the rifle is suspected of a crime or they are telling you to go away with your requests to see the public documents that you requested and the burden to prove there is no ongoing criminal investigation is on you.
No. They ARE telling me there IS a criminal investigation. But what they didn't tell me is who is suspected of a crime. I know it would be fantasy to suggest that they might be investigating the officer of one.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 11-15-2012, 6:25 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AyatollahGondola View Post
No. They ARE telling me there IS a criminal investigation. But what they didn't tell me is who is suspected of a crime. I know it would be fantasy to suggest that they might be investigating the officer of one.
We're on this. While I genuinely appreciate your curiosity, efforts, and intent, please consider letting me and our attorneys do our jobs.

ETA: Said differently, I'm sure everyone can read between the lines, but in case a few more data points are required, here is the statement of intent from my request for records to Arcata PD:

Quote:
PURPOSE OF REQUEST AND INTERESTS SERVED

In addition to other lawful purposes, I seek access to and production of the requested records in order to investigate a police encounter, detainment, and property seizure we have reason to believe may have violated the constitutionally-protected civil rights of the subject of the encounter (and possibly other state and federal laws as well).
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 11-15-2012 at 6:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 11-15-2012, 8:20 PM
AyatollahGondola's Avatar
AyatollahGondola AyatollahGondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,168
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
We're on this. While I genuinely appreciate your curiosity, efforts, and intent, please consider letting me and our attorneys do our jobs.
-Brandon
Disclosure of public records is not going to prevent you from doing your job. No offense sir, but I'm not even sure what your job actually is. Mine is advocacy, research, education, and outreach. Sometimes, aid in one form or another. I don't know the person at the center of this, and I'm not trying to help him personally. Our interest is bringing the information to the public in this case, for present and future consideration. But that's almost a moot point for the moment anyway, since the research has been blocked.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 11-15-2012, 8:36 PM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,592
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You've been here since 2008....

You should have confidence that when Brandon says he's on something....

He means it.

He can do a lot more for this particular individual along with ALL OF OUR gun rights than you have probably done in your entire life.

Not an attack, just saying you should research the person you're doubting....

Please keep us updated Brandon.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:51 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.